more craigslist violent crime -- what is craigslist doing to prevent it? what *should* they be doing given their humongous profits? a lot more then just giving some suggestions... Jim is really stretching it (last paragraph) again: those few suggestions do not amount to "measures," Jim -- serious measures are what you should be having but you have nothing of the kind ... nor do you intent to do anything about it, by all indication... D.

hoping Paul got it... as for Craig? he's either lobotomized or he *knows* what's going on! -- there is just no way to provide adequate customer service for the number of people using craigslist with the extremely limited resources he is willing to dedicate to it...

and is he calling me a "stalker," again? good :) -- that's when I know I hit a really good one! *lol* (probably this one this morning -- he posted his "feedback needed" -- the blog portion of it -- soon after (where he asked people to ignore "trolls" and "sites desperate for traffic" -- is he talking about Eve's site? what a jerk...) and the I-got-a-stalker twit was posted soon after I gave Paul the hint...

well, guess what... you can't shut people up! (as much as you'd like to...)

As far as I can tell the biggest strength is showing that regardless of what craigslist claims to be its reason for having "erotic services" the actual effect is very different and the biggest weakness is got to be mistakenly presenting the erotic service section as "forums" instead of advertisement.

I believe it would be for financial gain in the long run, that news could be integrated into craigslist and eventually be monetized. If you take a look at the community heading for craigslist cities there is a subheading for "local news and views" -- this subcategory is a mishmash of things at this point but it certainly has potential for news distribution. Craig's inside information from being involved with things like Daylife could really pay off. D.

Still MORE:

Totally understand! It's a precaution we have to take against trolls, but I completely understand why you might not be comfortable with it.

When you say "I think it's unlikely that Craig/craigslist would buyany media outlet but if it happened, it would be for very differentreasons." I'm intrigued. What reasons would there be?

note for Eve: I didn't realize I have to register to post on your site. I don't like doing that -- sorry! D.

STILL MORE:

re: ""I'll tell you that in this case I'm not in the business of considering motivation. Craig has intentionally positioned himself as the Guy Who Would Save Media, so, motivation aside, that's what poses the possibility that he'd be the buyer. I do not understand why he would not state for the record, now that an actually Save Media opportunity is presenting itself, if he is actually going to go for it.

And, I wouldn't blame him if he didn't! It's an expensive proposition with a lot of risk and little reward. But, like I said in my article,this playing coy thing makes his remarks on wanting journos to demand answers of industry leaders hypocritical."

Sorry about the long delay, Eve!

After having followed this for way too long (I thought I successfully quit a while ago but now I'm back at it), I've seen nothing to suggest Craig has any real interest in "saving" anything... just a lot of hot air... and double talk.

I he/craigslist bought the Chron, it wouldn't be to "help out"... that's why I think motivation is very important when discussing this topic. I think it's unlikely that Craig/craigslist would buy any media outlet but if it happened, it would be for very different reasons.

Delia

EVEN MORE:

love this crossposting idea, let's do it! Thanks for asking, please use my email any way you'd like. See you at the Appeal!

On Mar 14, 2009, at 6:30 PM, dperiod@comcast.net wrote: I have no idea what you said in that comment, Eve (haven't read it)...but I like what you are saying now:). Just to clarify, I don't think *you* are fool of it -- I was implying that Craig/craigslist is... We can certainly talk at sfappel if you'd like to talk! I'll meet you there. I'll post a comment to kick it off...re:

"I'll tell you that in this case I'm not in the business of considering motivation. Craig has intentionally positioned himself as the Guy Who Would Save Media, so, motivation aside, that's what poses the possibility that he'd be the buyer. I do not understand why he would not state for the record, now that an actually Save Media opportunity is presenting itself, if he is actually going to go for it.

And, I wouldn't blame him if he didn't! It's an expensive proposition with a lot of risk and little reward. But, like I said in my article,this playing coy thing makes his remarks on wanting journos to demand answers of industry leaders hypocritical."

Delia

P.S. Is it ok to post this email exchange in the body of the entry on my blog? from then on I'll be cross posting my comments (on your site and on my blog) with links to your responses on your site, ok?

On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 18:09 -0700, Eve Batey wrote:Now I'm trying to remember what I said, because I think it was clever! Maybe something like "come over to the Appeal and let's talk about it in the comments there"? Because I'd love to get the discussion going there on it, we are new and eager for discourse.

Barring that, I'll tell you that in this case I'm not in the business of considering motivation. Craig has intentionally positioned himself as the Guy Who Would Save Media, so, motivation aside, that's what poses the possibility that he'd be the buyer. I do not understand why he would not state for the record, now that an actually Save Media opportunity is presenting itself, if he is actually going to go for it.

And, I wouldn't blame him if he didn't! It's an expensive proposition with a lot of risk and little reward. But, like I said in my article, this playing coy thing makes his remarks on wanting journos to demand answers of industry leaders hypocritical.

But, still, come over to the Appeal and let's talk about it! I wantto know what you have to say! Come tell me I'm full of it.

EVEN MORE: @tsmyther Hi, Smythe! no offense but I'm wondering if you still believe in Santa Claus (the craigslist fairy tale is very similar) Delia5 minutes agofrom webin reply to tsmyther...MORE: there was a twit at one point where a guy was unabashedly asking Craig is he was interested in doing an interview / PR -- in those words --and, wouldn't you know it, Craig jumped at it... shouldn't these people get paid? (looks like there are plenty of profits to go around) D....Twitter: @jake_buehler did you guys get paid for the PR provided? (craig is all but reading off a script with little interruption) D.less than 10 seconds agofrom webin reply to jake_buehler

"Dart said the agreement between Craigslist and the attorneys general has resulted in *no appreciable reduction of ads for prostitution on the site*. Furthermore, he said, Craigslist does not monitor the "erotic services" section of the site, and when his officers have attempted to contactCraigslist *they have been ignored or not gotten the kind of help they need*.

Dart is asking a federal judge to order Craigslist to eliminate its "Erotic Services" section, where most prostitution ads are posted. He also is *seeking reimbursement for tax dollars spent* paying the salaries of officers who investigate and arrest those responsible for trafficking women on the Web site."

-- does the existence of the "erotic services" section result in an increased number of incidents of prostitution? I would think so... it certainly appears to provide an efficient and effective way of engaging in prostitution (at least some individuals would not have done it outside of craigslist) so how is this not knowingly promoting and facilitation prostitution?

-- craigslist's (too) long standing lame defense has been that if they got rid of that section, those ads would pop up elsewhere on craigslist... except that it would be much less efficient and effective than providing a centralized place for those ads and would thus result in less increase in prostitution...

-- and that's a red herring anyways because what craigslist provides in those sections is ADS, so they should screen those ads like advertisers are legally required to do... this is easily doable (a program that makes sure certain words are not mentioned in those ads -- nothing too sophisticated -- would accomplish the same function as the screeners employed by paper publications)

-- EEF continues to miss the point... (willingly?): they keep talking non-sense about "freedom of speech"! those posts are just...ADS... they are in the advertisement segments of craigslist and as such should abide by legal requirements for ads... the posts in the craigslist FORUMS should definitely have the benefit of free speech (not that they always do, often a snap decision is made to move forum posts to the Isle of Misfits or delete them altogether...)